True, anonymous commenters can be obnoxious trolls. And sponsors say they hope to protect kids from cyberbullies and shield businesses from negative posts by their rivals — not that even those goals should be allowed to trump the First Amendment.
But as Assemblyman Jim Conte (R-LI) made clear, the bill will also ban “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks that . . . falsely tarnish the opponent’s reputation by using the anonymity of the Web.”

Forget the First Amendment — these guys are looking out for No. 1.

In the assembly, a bunch of GOP lawmakers have signed on. But the measure doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere. Who knows what may have happened if media outlets hadn’t discovered the bill’s existence.

– Canada stands to profit a lot more than New York State and Niagara Falls from Nik Wallenda’s wire walk. Oh darn.

I know it really shouldn’t in this day and age, but for some reason it never stops baffling me: Where did this idea that the government’s role is to shelter us from things that someone may or may not find “offensive” come from, and how has it gained so much traction?

Rachel’s two posts (this and the post about Schumer’s problem with metal bristle grill brushes) sum up the Republican and Democrat philosophy’s. Democrats try to reign in powerful companies making money off people with products that might not be safe. Republicans like O’Mara and Murray go after the individual and try to reign in their freedom. I’m with the Democrats. I’m for government protection of individuals and their freedom, rather than the Republicans efforts to protect the “freedom of corporations”.

Reggie, that seems a bit overgeneralized. The real problems seem to lay less among partisan philosophies, but more with the power our lawmakers hold, and the fact that their incentives around making decisions don’t line up as well as they could with the goals and rights of the people they are elected to serve.

You’re right, Rachel, it is. I guess my complaint is directly a function of us simply proposing too many laws. And it also boosts the importance of watchdog groups: those with truly altruistic agendas.

You can address cyber bullying without resorting to censorship and these folks know it. You are absolutely right, Rachel, this is all about looking out for number one, and not just in campaigns. This will chill free speech and keep us from voicing our concerns online for fear of being accused of “unnecessarily maligning” a politician.

This doesn’t bother me. Aren’t the people who go online and attack others under the guise of “anonymous” already censoring themselves?? I am in no way a supporter of undue government intervention, but PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY does need to be addressed in open forums. As far as I am concerned, the protection of “free speech” does not fall under any “anonymous” moniker … those are for cowards and people who are more into terrorizing than contributing to any productive discourse.

I get your point Jeff, but as a webmaster I would tell you there’s no way we could comply with the law. For example, I don’t know that Jeff Beach is real name, so if I don’t like your comment, I’d just call Rachel at the number she would be asked to provide, and ask her to verify your identity?

That’s preposterous, and it shakes the firmament on which the web was built.

I recognize that bullying occurs online (and off) and anonymity can help contribute to it. However, the legislation would end up causing most of us to simply would close our blogs to comment, which doesn’t do anyone any good.